BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Grant's Arkham Asylum

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Dave Philpott
01:28 / 18.08.03
Has anyone properly annotated ARKHAM ASYLUM online? If so, where?
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
16:22 / 18.08.03
There was a dissertation done on it, though I can't find it now. Google 'Arkham Asylum' + notes, that'll give you some reviews and opinions of people on the book and it's themes.
 
 
Abraxas
04:47 / 10.12.04
Well, thanks to some insightful people at DC we now have the anniversary HC with the man himself providing a running commentary for his own final draft script plus a major part of his very own thumbnails. Rarely have I seen a reissue that rewarding. Sweet!
 
 
DaveBCooper
16:46 / 10.12.04
Haven’t fully read the new edition yet, but it’s interesting to see the script, and Grant’s page breakdowns (which seem to include the later-excised Robin appearance), and read his annotations (at the bottom of the page, in red, which is a pretty good way to do it).

I like Arkham Asylum a lot, it’s one of those books I can pick up every couple of months and find myself spotting something new, be it in the art or the story. And any Batman story which features dialogue along the lines of “Afraid ? Batman’s not afraid of anything. It’s ME. I’m scared” is likely to get my thumbs-up really.

And I think that Dave McKean’s a criminally talented man (and a very nice one, to boot) – it says in the creator biographies on the back flap that he contributed production design work on the 2nd and 3rd Harry Potter films, which I did not know.
 
 
Jack Fear
17:09 / 10.12.04
I'm still at a loss as to why ARKHAM ASYLUM would need annotating. It's not a particularly dense or allusive work.
 
 
Haus of Mystery
17:40 / 10.12.04
I'm still waiting for the annotations for 'Death in the Family'.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:24 / 10.12.04
You know what I don't get? PEANUTS. This "Brown" character—what's up with his head? And are these characters supposed to be children, or adults? And how does the dog balance on top of his dog-house? Has anybody seen any research into this?
 
 
diz
23:37 / 10.12.04
I'm still at a loss as to why ARKHAM ASYLUM would need annotating. It's not a particularly dense or allusive work.

oh, come on, Jack! you're missing out on such sparkling commentary as:

- The character of the Mad Hatter is a reference to Lewis Carroll's 1865 children's book, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

- Another reference to the tarot.

- Aleister Crowley, the so-called Great Beast, was an early 20th century occultist. Chess is a game of strategy, played by two players on a chessboard.

- Another use of bat imagery.
 
 
Ganesh
00:49 / 11.12.04
I'm still at a loss as to why ARKHAM ASYLUM would need annotating. It's not a particularly dense or allusive work.

Wellll, I seem to remember seeing a couple of George's original page breakdowns, which actually did come across as both dense and allusive. McKean's execution put paid to most of this stuff - which is either a good or bad thing, depending how one chooses to view it.
 
 
Krug
01:10 / 11.12.04
I wasn't going to buy it, as I already own a softcover but Milehighcomics.com has it at 50% off in the anniversary edition.

I just bought it, so if you're unsure about paying 30 for it, you'd be getting it half off.

I certainly don't understand why Arkham Asylum is hated arounds these parts, I think it's a breathtakingly beautiful book with some memorable writing by our man George.
 
 
This Sunday
02:16 / 11.12.04
Since the 'New X-Men' annos don't seem to be leaping madly forth... is there any reason we couldn't or shouldn't just annotate the ol' Passion of the Bat? Y'know, do it for the kids.
Does anyone remember what 'Doom Patrols' had to say on it?
Did flirty-Joker goosing the black leather tightass with the ears, have anything to do with, say, jumpstarting a certain chakra, like a good kick (or kiss, if you're a Templar) on the ass?
Is there a connection between the doc wearing his mother's clothes (he did, right? I'm not just superimposing something from somewhere else?) and Bat-Jesus' dressing himself into the ultimate parent-figure who stalks the night?
Does anyone else remember how pissy a bunch of fanboys got at McKeans badass renditions of certain (*cough* Croc *cough hack wheeze*) characters?
Super-sanity or just cycling his memeplex? I'd pay real money to see Joker as 'scared daughter of dracula too high up on a glass wall', I really would.
Has Grant ever successfully got all of a script actually drawn? Seems, every artist wants to drop stuff, and I wouldn't be surprised if even he had ideas on, say, some old Stargrave short, that he just couldn't be bothered to draw at the last minute.
Why do I want this comic covered by Cameron Stewart, Alan Davis, or whoever did that 'blowing god' comic in WW3?
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
09:32 / 11.12.04
This is Our Lady has lost All Hope using GGM's computer

Say what you want about Grant Morrison, and we have, a lot, over the last five or six years, but he really seems to have bad luck when it comes to collaborators. Specifically in the case of artists taking the script and not fucking drawing what Grant tells them to draw. Now, sometimes Grant may not make it easy for them, those pages at the end of Invisibles 3.2 that Cameron had to redraw for the trade, perhaps that was a case of an artist who hadn't necessarily followed the series having to draw something that Grant was desribing semi-poetically rather than what he actually wanted to see. It was a tough gig and I think the Guide says that Grant wasn't always around at this time to talk to artists on the phone. But then Ridgway has the next page and clear instructions what to draw and just doesn't bother. For whatever reason.

It's a bit like that here. I suspect there's interoffice politics that we don't hear about at play, but if we assume, as we are led to, that this is the approved script that Grant Morrison gave Dave McKean to draw, and that what Dave McKean drew was what was accepted and published by DC as 'Arkham Asylum', then Dave McKean, wonderfully talented Dave McKean, who I really, really like, fucked up. Big time. All right, so drawing Clayface as 'AIDS on two legs' might be difficult, but for a story where allegory and metaphor are vitally important, for McKean to not draw them is, well, I'm not sure what the best term is to describe it, artistically criminal? Negligent?

Take the Maxie Zeus scene, Morrison describes how it is the room in which Arkham kills Mad Dog Hawkins, and that Maxie is mainlining current and using it to sexually abuse/arouse a guard. Not that you don't see any of this in what McKean draws. Similarly, when Arkham looks at drawings his daughter has done, Grant writes how important it is that McKean shows these drawing are of a man with two heads, and a man with a wolf's face. Now, look at what's drawn, something which might be a man with a wolf's head, but not two-face. The script says that Arkham's wife is four months pregnant when they are killed (to reiterate her status as mother in the female triad in Arkham's life). Now drawing a four month pregnant woman might be tricky but McKean doesn't even try.

We could go on through, pointing out all the times when what McKean draws ignores directions in the script. Arkham Asylum looks fantastic (though why DC didn't take the opportunity to bind this better than the original, we still have text disappearing into the centre of the book) but the script would show the reason the story is perhaps not the greatest in the world is not for want of Grant trying.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
13:35 / 11.12.04
I remember Grant saying in an old interview how he wanted the story to be drawn by someone with a very realistic style, so that we could see every inch of dirt in the asylum's corridors. and in some ways the general atmosphere would be much more fucked up [in the 'mad' sense] than it already is in Mckean's rendition.

maybe he wanted to top Moore by having someone like Brian Bolland in the book [I guess Grant actually mentioned the name] and I'm very curious as to how all those metaphors would have worked in such a different style.

maybe in 20 or 30 years, when Comic Covering picks up as trend and AA is old enough, we'll have a chance to see that. =)
 
 
miss wonderstarr
00:05 / 14.12.04
building on the excellent examples above

pp.1-9 coffee-table double-spreads to show your 1980s dinner-party guests that comics aren't just for kids

p.16 and passim illegible red skritchy lettering, making all Joker dialogue redundant

p.28 unaccountably poor picture of a girl's face

p.46 Finding Nemo
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:30 / 14.12.04
Now, I must say I like the Joker none balloons, expressing how he infects the world through his words and actions, madness is contagious etc etc... That't the missing annotation for me, something to explain how they came up with that, as it's not something Grant apparently thought of when writing the script and McKean didn't letter it.
 
 
FinderWolf
12:37 / 14.12.04
I speed-read most of the Grant annotations in the store, and there are at least some that aren't as banal as the ones listed above.
 
 
Dicodisco
07:24 / 15.12.04
You can read some of them in this review:
http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=18991#4
 
 
This Sunday
03:17 / 22.12.04
Yay! I got my Morrison books back, which I can kill off my urge to annotate the Bat-Christ, and y'all can post and tell me how wrong every bit is. To cover a bit, some notes are phrased as questions, rather than just say things that may appear stupid shortly after posting.
There will be some stupid comments anyway, surely.
Someone with the new edition can probably do a lot better.

Pages 01 & 02 - Of course you need wood and nails for a passion play, well, if you want to be literalist about it.
Is that a map of the asylum?

Pages 03-04 - The 'X' overlapping the rectangle seems connected to the comments-in-boxes at the end of the book.
What does the writing say?
An early bat, Icaronycteris, fossil. Interesting (to me) that it has a noticeable tail (unlike most bats), and Bats get goosed later on, not to mention his inability to, y'know, let it all hang out.

Pages 05-06 - No ideas, really. More 'X's and more writing.

Pages 07-08 - Broken watch has it's time set to, I think, the same time the Wayne Manor clock had to be set to as to open the way to the Cave.
The red string has nothing to do with Cap. Britain's brother, but a very Morrisonian thing to do, yeah? Characters from one fictional universe controlling events in another company's sandbox?

Pages 09-10 - Lewis Caroll quote.
Two towers and a moon.
I'm going to ignore both Alice and tarot, for the rest of the book. Someone with more tenacity can hack the repetitive, or I'll do it later.

Page 11 - House as world. Another world uncovered necessitates another house.

Pages 12 - Beetles are a symbol of change. See every third and second issue of 'The Invisibles' for corollary.

Page 13 - Map of asylum, again.
Is there a stain on my copy's page, or is there a light BARBELiTH on Arkham's momma's hand?
Does the fourth panel (of the cup falling) look like a side-view of a boy's head, to anyone else? Ear/handle and such?

Page 14 - Facial erasure.

Page 15 - I'm never going to read this page again without 'Don't tell the GCPD about this; ever.' and his scifi closet of gooey lovey goodness.
Batman's crossed out - how 'bout that?
It's black and white outside the asylum, as it Bat's dialogue, but that's the other-way-round from most people's.

Page 16 - Even if Joker's April Fools joke(s) aren't up your alley, at least it's the right day.

Page 17 - Joker gets in the first of many jabs are Bat's sexual repression.

Page 18 - Another house.

Page 21 - Pearl starts it for Arkham and for Bats.

Page 22 - Dog's are annoying; mad dogs especially.
Bats, apparently, can be just as annoying.

Page 23 - Arkham came from Metropolis to Gotham. From the house/world of sanity to the house/world of well, Gotham.
Martin Hawkins; annoying dog.

Page 24 - Facial erasure, repression and inability to feel.

Page 25 - There's a sun above, then there's a moon on his head. Of course he feels like a child again.

Page 26 - The sexual repression jumps up and shouts for attention again with the 'tunnel of love' making an appearance.

Page 27 - What is the white powder Bats has been mucking about with for the past few pages? Sugar? Sand?

Page 28 - You have to love Joker's pinned eyes. At least he has pupils, something Bats is missing.

Page 29 - Violence is funny, even when no one gets hurt.
Pearl reminds me of someone? Any guesses?

Page 30 - Anubis, an annoying dog.
Aside from untightening the Bat-ass, is there a little chakra loosening here?
Bats just has a general no-touch-rule in his life - at least, eighties psycho-repressed Bats. Uber-Bats has got to enjoy at least a few non-Talia hays in the roll, yeah?

And that's as far into that as I'm going to get right now. Anyone want to add, correct, and otherwise surpass?
 
 
Ben Danes
05:14 / 22.12.04
Some quotes regarding Batman's portrayal, from the book:

"I'd also like to stress that the portrayl of Batman presented here is not definitive and is not necessarily how I would write the character otherwise. The repressed, armoured, uncertain and sexually frozen man in ARKHAM ASYLUM was intended as a critique of the '80s interpretation of Batman as violent, driven and borderline psychopathic. My own later portrayl of Batman in the JLA comic was one which emphasised the character's sanity and dignity; in the end, I figured that anyone who had gone so far and been so successful in his quest to avenge his parents' death and to help other people would have ended up pretty much straightened out. Bruce Wayne would only have become conflicted and mentally unstable if he had NOT put on his scary bat-suit and found the perfect outlet for his feelings of rage, guilt and revenge."

The final note:

"Having been through this reversal of all his normal valencies, the '80s Batman, purified and purged of negative elements, is returned to Gotham City to become the super-confident, zen warrior of my subsequent JLA stories."


It really is worth getting just for the script and Grant's notes. Plus the hardcover looks a lot better than the trade I had before.
 
 
Jack Fear
11:01 / 22.12.04
Page 27 - What is the white powder Bats has been mucking about with for the past few pages? Sugar? Sand?

Salt, as the Joker mentions in his introduction ("Why don't you sprinkle some on me? Don't I look good enough to eat?"): placed by Dr. Whotsisface as part of the binding ritual.

This, of course, only needs annotating if you're not actually paying attention as you read it through the first time.
 
 
This Sunday
11:16 / 22.12.04
Salt. Argh! I should've read through instead of trusting memory and just starting from the begining. That and I kinda like the idea of a sugared psycho treat.
I warned they'd be crap - they're really just to get the ball rolling and hoping someone better would carry on with the legit findings.
Think I'll actually take more than a cursory glance at the rest of the book before posting any more observations, though.
 
 
Krug
13:36 / 22.12.04
Got my copy a few days ago, I was expecting an oversized hardcover for that pricetag.

Fucking ripoff.

Bearded Joker, Brian Bolland...does make me tingle though.
If only..

Haven't read it yet and I won't for a while.
 
 
Krug
14:24 / 22.12.04
Yes, the big question.

Is it worth it?

There's no reason to buy it as far as I can see, the annotations don't look so great. Maybe somebody will put 'em up online or do better ones. I bought it because it was twelve dollars and I generally disagree with naysayers, for me it's one of the his best works. And part of me still loves Batman even if I don't haven't been following him for years.

The book is only worth buying if you geniunely love it, and like hardcovers. If I owned the original hardcover I would've been curious but wouldn't have plonked down anything for the new one. I gave my trade away a few days before my hardcover arrived to a needy friend in a country without comic stores so I don't feel bad, especially since it only cost me 12 dollars.

Now if only Morrison wouldo do another Batman story, this time without Klaus Janson.
 
 
The Falcon
14:21 / 23.12.04
I loved Janson's scratchy art in 'Gothic'.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
15:30 / 23.12.04
To answer Miles question, it's probably only worth buying if, like me, you quite liked the story or greater, and didn't already own a copy.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
19:20 / 01.01.05
Hey! I've just realised! Maxie Zeus has been collecting his own shit in a pot hasn't he? No wonder Batman backs out of the room without saying anything...
 
 
FinderWolf
17:43 / 02.03.05
someone over at aint-it-cool-news just wrote this:

>> [Grant Morrison's] always been great, starting with his ARKHAM ASYLUM hard cover (so good that DC chose it over Alan Moore's ARKHAM pitch).

Is this guy high or misinformed? I never heard of Alan Moore ever having a pitch for an Arkham book.
 
 
FinderWolf
12:34 / 19.07.05
paperback version of this coming out in Oct. for something like $20, from the new DC solicits.
 
 
Mug Chum
18:32 / 07.10.07
I'm not a huge fan of this book, but I've finally managed to read the annotated script for the 1st time. This 15th anniversary edition is really worth it (almost half the thing is a 1 page introduction, the entire annotated script and thumbnails sketches from GM) -- and for me was a great addition just to finally have it in the original language. This thing made me believe my over-cooked readings of A.*.S. is just 50% delusional and crazy... so, you can imagine how it is...

But you could certainly see he was a young over-excited guy at the time, no? A few bits here and there, very little like a comic book script (leaving much in the hands of McKean -- or just simply forgetting to be more specific and help him out more), overtly cinematic description of scenes while forgeting somethings don't go like x in the comic book; in a few parts some long -- but immensily cool -- descriptions and overt wandering preocupations about loosely connected symbolic subtexts (connections sort of vaguely made -- mostly "truth", in the sense that books of anthropology, mythology and magick generally might have it and that the story does present them, but connected in a way a bit too much for himself when he wanders in the script itself, instead of finding ways to punch these symbols for us).

But yay! I gots me one!!!
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
20:37 / 09.10.07
I prefer to see it as Grant explains what should happen on the page and Dave McKean says "bollocks to that" and draws what he feels like.
 
 
Mug Chum
20:55 / 09.10.07
They're stupid little things, but that stood out for me while reading; tiny stuff like (paraphrasing) "in slow motion" and "the beetle's legs is still moving" and some other bits that it's just almost as if blatantly forgetting the medium, that'll be divided in panels instead of a videoclip and giving little help and direction to the colaborator (just this insane thing with no pauses, almost no cut between scenes and pages; it's like Molly Bloom's river fever).

It seemed like from such a over-enthusiastic rush from someone who's linking their own work a bit too much to remember to come down a bit (and you get this feeling of McKane -- which I'm simpathetic to just because I'm a fabulously mega nice guy, 'cause I can't enjoy his art at all -- going "now how the fuck am I supposed to do that?").
 
 
Mug Chum
15:07 / 03.11.07
Wow, huh... holy shit...

Actually not all bad, considering the comic was almost a work from a college film festival.

But yes, the Joker's "Holaaaaa!" is unintentionally burst-out-loud funny.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
15:52 / 03.11.07
Link is dead for me, I'm afraid...
 
 
Mug Chum
19:57 / 03.11.07
Ooops, sorry.

I hope it goes right this time.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:01 / 04.11.07
Has anyone had any luck finding the full version as the guy has taken it off his website?
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply